Messages

31

Canon General / Re: Desired fantasy gear

« on: May 16, 2013, 11:48:16 AM »

Very interesting ideas, all of you!

Here are a couple of my wishes:

*Canon EF prime lens 350mm f/4 IS priced at or under $3000.  In other words, let's fill the gap between lenses with a 77mm to 82mm front element...and the "supertelephoto" megapriced group, whose front elements are not smaller than 5 inches...

*Canon EF zoom lens 22-120mm, f/3.2, multi-mode IS, no barrel or pincushion distortion anywhere in the zoom range, and very low to no CA.  Resolution on par with, or very close to the current 24-70 f/2.8.  Price $1899. 

*Price no object...Really fast primes or zooms from any manufacturer, that are state of the art optically.  Specifically, something at or around 60mm, 90mm, 110mm, and 160mm.  I'm taking this fantasy to the extreme, so the 60mm range would be f/0.4, the 90 f/0.7, the 110 f/0.9, and 160 f/1.2.  All would have fast autofocus and 4 or 5 stop IS.  All would be as sharp over 90% of the image area, as the current series 2 Canon supertelephotos.  All would be as light and strong as possible, with adequate weather sealing.  And again, all could exist inside one zoom lens...although the price would be far higher than if it were divided into prime lenses at the various focal lengths...Such a zoom would be $15k to $20k in present day dollars...

*Canon replacement or alternative to the 1DX, in two body versions.  One a downsized, cheaper version with a lesser AF, the other the full 1 series body.  Both would use a future tech sensor achieving edge of the art dynamic range and s/n ratio, with resolution from 19 to 26 MP.  The sensor would not be "full frame" at 36mm width, but a crop, about 32 to 33mm in width.  Incorporate some innovations from other manufacturers somehow...perhaps by purchasing controlling interest in one or more of those companies. 

*Higher viewfinder magnification combined with larger "apparent field of view" via the finder...for all Canon bodies (except maybe the Rebel line).  An image through the viewfinder, with a 50mm lens mounted, focused at or near infinity, should show objects exactly the same size as the naked eye sees them...AND NOT SMALLER than the eye sees them.

*Advanced autofocus, as some others have said...with some kind of eye movement detection.

*Leica somehow modifies some of their M-mount lenses to work on DSLR bodies...and makes them fully automatic, electronic, and with IS...haha.

*A CANON 1.7x teleconverter that is optically superior to even the current series 3.

32

EOS Bodies / Re: Bye Canon?

« on: May 16, 2013, 11:22:19 AM »

The 7D MK II will trump them all!!! "One camera to rule them all, one camera to find them; one camera to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them!!!"

Laughing deeply...thank you!

33

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Waiting for a Sigma 50 "A" like their 35 to appear?

« on: May 16, 2013, 11:16:59 AM »

I would have exchanged it for another one before I decided to "stick with canon"...and I also would have shot the video in the horizontal aspect.  Looks too much like the stupid videos all the 14 year olds shoot, if you do it vertically...just my two cents.

Isn't it also a factor for you, hanifshootsphotos, that you might be a little peeved that your Canon 35mm f/1.4, is worth a bit less on the used market than it was, before the Sigma came out?

34

Lenses / Re: Andy Rouse Reviews the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x

« on: May 16, 2013, 10:57:48 AM »

I hate being cynical, but he has had the lens for 6 months and no doubt would like Canon's next toy for 6 months or so too. That does not tend to happen when one is too critical, or sometimes even negative towards the toys they offer.

Still, an interesting read, and I look forward to reading more from others.

Most definitely agree!

Andy Rouse wrote:
"To be truthful, a better method here is to take the 2x converter, place it gently on the ground so that it is bathed in lovely soft, evening light. Then paint your teeth red and smash it violently to pieces with a large baseball bat, cackling maniacally all the time at passers by. Go on do it, it will feel so good. Now before you think I have an issue against Canon 2x converters I don't! I hate ALL 2x teleconverters equally!!! I consider them a complete waste of space and money, it is always better to use a 1.4x teleconverter and crop. Of course that is just my view!"

That last sentence is opinionated twaddle from the Ken Rockwell school of creative writing.  The MTFs for the 2xTC III on the 300mm f/2.8 II are, as seen in the collage I posted, very good and the contrast etc excellent. None of the photos he has posted, as good as they are, show very fine detail as you would see on bird plumage at high resolution.  If he took such photos and compared a rezzed up 1.4 with a 2x he would see the advantage of the 2x - my 1.4x TC spends most of its time in its pouch.

It is really the previous series two, Canon 2x TC that has soured the "quick to make snap judgments and wax poetic a la Ken Rockwell" crowd against 2x teleconverters, in my opinion.  I got my series 2 for free, and that's probably closer to what it is worth.  I use it occasionally, but am thinking of selling.  I've not tried the new series 3 2x TC, but surely it must be a lot better optically.  My only experience with the series 3 1.4x TC, was terrible...I used it with a series 1 500 f/4.  The resolution was soft, the AF inaccurate.  But then that lens without a TC, was the same. 

But frankly, even the inferior series two 2x TC, is going to give more resolution than upscaling an image shot with a 1.4x TC, on the same lens.

What Canon really needs to do, is make a high quality 1.7x TC...and call it a series 4.  Then there might not be a need for either of the series 3...but especially not the 2x iii.  They might even sell more of them than the other two combined...because 1.7x is the real sweet spot for magnifying the image, in my opinion.  You get enough of a boost in reach, but also compromise sharpness less than a 2x TC does.

35

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Waiting for a Sigma 50 "A" like their 35 to appear?

« on: May 14, 2013, 12:10:25 PM »

I wish the problem was simple front or back focus. The problem with some Sigma lenses is that focus goes back and forth between front, spot on, and back. Or maybe I shouldn't generalize - that's the problem with MY Sigma 50, and I've read many other similar accounts with other lenses including the new 35 1.4. You can't account for it, just need to either hope it hits or use MF (which stinks, because there is little throw in the focus ring and it's not very smooth). To me that speaks to some sort of poor alignment of a physical piece of the lens, not just computer error, which is in turn related to QC.

I REALLY want the 35 1.4, but I'm too put off by recent experience to bother. Maybe I'll get over it some day and break down, or maybe that USB thingie will work.

Rather than buy the Sigma 35, it just sounds to me like you should sell your Sigma 50mm f/1.4.  I've not read any good reviews for that lens.  Sigma's own MTF charts show sharpness drops off massively towards the borders and corners, even on a crop body.  And that's if you achieve "perfect focus"...It just seems to me that they designed it as a compromise lens.  You would be better off selling it, and just buying a used or new Canon 1.4 or 1.2, if you need more autofocus accuracy.  Or else just use a 24-70 f/2.8 (either the Tamron, or the old or new Canons...obviously that's getting into higher cost territory). 

Achieving consistent and accurate autofocus with an f/1.4 or faster lens, can definitely sometimes be asking for trouble, even if it's a Canon lens.  I've personally never achieved that, nor can I reliably get sharp focus manually, through the viewfinder, enough of the time to do it in a professional setting.

From a marketing standpoint, even Sigma critics would admit that they needed to "rebrand" their line...calling it "art", "sport", etc.  In an attempt to set the new designs apart from the older ones.  However, it seems to me that the "sport" 120-300 f/2.8, just may be the same old optical formula...so that kind of pollutes the pool water for the "new line".  The "look" of the lens bodies for the new line though, is simply stunning.

The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 may wind up standing alone as the only "Canon killer" lens they make.  I hope it's not, but you never know, until the (unbiased) tests are in.

36

Lenses / Re: Andy Rouse Reviews the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x

« on: May 14, 2013, 11:48:45 AM »

It seems like a very nice lens. I have to ask myself though, if his only other choice were using the 100-400 how much different would these shots look? Sure the ISO8000 shots wouldn't have been possible at f/5.6. I guess what I'm saying is that it seems like a lot of money to gain one stop and IQ. This lens is 10x the cost of the 100-400, but is it 10x a better lens? It will be very interesting to see what an updated 100-400 will bring.

The law of diminishing returns.  Surely no one who ever buys (or even uses) the new 200-400, will ever admit they could achieve similar results with a far less costly lens.  Just as someone who has the 100-400, would never admit that a third party lens is optically as good as it, but for half the price.  It's amusing to me that all the 100-400 fanboys are positively itching to their very souls, since Nikon's new 80-400 came out...counting the seconds to when they can rush to buy a new Canon "equivalent".  When they do buy the "new 100-400", they will be quick to tout how much better it is than the old lens, and how it was worth the upgrade (even if Canon feels the need to offer it at or above $3k...to make sure it's priced higher than the Nikon...for that extra snob appeal and bling factor).

Not to say that the Canon 200-400 is not a fine lens, it looks like it is.  For myself, I prefer to shoot wildlife in lower light, and am not currently a pro sports shooter.  If I was, then this 200-400 and a 1DX would be the way to go, without a doubt.  It's just a shame Nikon beat Canon by about a decade, with their 200-400 f/4.  Obviously it does not look comparable in optical quality or performance ergonomics (especially the IS and the T/C switcher), to the Canon...

A similar cost/value comparison could be made between "supercars" and plain old "sports cars".  Is the Bugatti Veyron Super Sport 10x better than a Ferrari 458 Italia?  To some it might be...to others not.  But let's face it.  The only difference between the two, while driving legally on public roads, is the bling factor.       

37

Lenses / Re: Best lens for capturing the Milky Way?

« on: May 14, 2013, 11:28:03 AM »

Sorry to quote out of context, but this is directly contrary to what Lensrentals found when they tested the Zeiss 25mm f/2.  They found it was not all that sharp, and I assume tested several copies.

Hi Carl -
I respect Roger C's knowledge. Nevertheless, LR did a test to find the best lenses for the D800E. Per LR's test the 25/2 is the sharpest lens they have at that focal length... In a different blog post, Roger comments that it may not be the best choice for landscape use. These comments are not consistent with one another. I've also compared RC's  results with Lloyd Chambers (www.zeissguide.com - you pay for what you get) and Lloyd's at odds with Roger's assessment.

I guess the only way to check this rigorously is to piggyback my 5D2 and a couple of lenses on my (Tak) mount, focus carefully and shoot some images. Predictably, Toronto will be getting wall-to-wall rain all weekend (and I just realised my camera is still at Canon.)

So it's time for navel gazing....

I'm generally quite loath to believe what manufacturers claim - measurements are adverts and the conditions are carefully chosen for maximum effect. Subject to this caveat, here's the spec sheet.... http://lenses.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/carl-zeiss-camera-lenses/camera_lenses/slr-lenses/distagont225.html.

When stopped down to f/4, the 25/2 is supposed to achieve better than 70% contrast (at 40 lp/mm over an 36 mm diameter disc.)

Translation - At f/4, this lens can reproduce 40 x 36 = 1440 off-to-on-to-off transitions with a contrast of at least 70% over the width of a 135 sized sensor. Mild sharpening in pp can easily improve the contrast if needed.

Stars are essentially points. Assume visible light and f/4, then the smallest disc possible is about 2.4 microns fwhm. Thanks to AA filters, our cameras can really only resolve about 2 pixels, or say 12 microns. Camera lenses don't need to be diffraction limited. This is why I can afford them.

Anyway - the 25/2 easily allows resolution of about 2880 transitions in 36 mm, or 80/mm. This means the resolution width is 12.5 microns. Now the camera can only see 12.5 microns so the 25/2 lens is capable of filling the camera's resolution over the 36 mm disc with 70% or better contrast...

Focusing to this level is achievable - motion of the lens through 10 microns on either side of focus degrades resolution by ~20% . A good loupe and magnified live view make it easy.

For astrophotography - it pays to focus the lens at about halfway to the edge. This helps to deal with focal plane curvature.

Ok - to close my comments on this - If you study the corresponding data sheet for the 21/2.8 http://lenses.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/downloadcenter/datasheets_slr/distagont2821.pdf, you will notice that the 25/2 at f/4 is about comparable with the 21/2.8 at f/5.6. If the 21/2.8 lens is legendary, it is (IMO) barely in the same league as the 25/2, 50/2 and - going by reports - 135/2.

Very interesting.  I seem to recall Roger's main complaint was that it got too soft closer to wide open at f/2 (I could be remembering wrong).  The test at f/4 is fine for f/4...are you saying you do shorter-than-40-second exposures at or around f/4, and just let the noise take its terrible effect?

Can I assume that you are saying the 25 f/2, would be sharper at f/2.8, than the 21mm lens at f/2.8? 

The reason I would buy or use either the Zeiss 21 or 25, would be to shoot at wider aperture than f/4...to capture the Milky Way with a minimum of motion and minimum noise.  Longer exposure "star trail" photography does not interest me as much.

The only picture of mine that's ever been published was of the Milky Way, shot three years ago with an older Sigma 17-70 on a crop body.  The editor commented on the star sharpness I achieved, but thankfully gave me a pass on the noise.

38

EOS Bodies / Re: Bye Canon?

« on: May 10, 2013, 06:30:13 PM »

Best MF vs Best 35mm

IQ180 vs D800.

IQ 180 wins without a shadow of doubt. (for what it is)

I've condensed those several pages to that.

That's fine, and so you are disagreeing with the almighty DXOMark rating?  haha...(regarding the sensor performance only, of course...which I guess is not really the full nature of both of your arguments.)

39

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF135mm f/2L USM

« on: May 10, 2013, 06:27:04 PM »

I've had my 135L for 4 years, love it.  Probably never sell it.  However, color rendition isn't necessarily its strongest asset.  It's really just part of the whole package that makes it such a great lens.  The color balance itself is a tad cooler than I like, and sometimes too green, so I compensate with some magenta bias in-camera.  In my opinion, bokeh smoothness is its strongest asset.  Sharpness, and both global and micro-contrast, are all a close second.  I will find it hard to believe any current or future lenses in the 135mm focal length, will be a better overall lens.  An f/1.4 or faster zoom of some kind, could possibly be a better overall lens, but would be pricey and hard to design and build.  I find that much of the wildlife I like to shoot, needs such fast aperture for the low light...that none exist.

I certainly would be interested in a replacement with IS (which would be huge for my event work), and I wouldn't mind if they could tighten up the CA a bit.  It isn't as bad as my 85mm f/1.8, but still shows it on occasion.  It's interesting what you say about color.  It probably is a bit cool, which is ironic, since I'm partial to my Tamron 24-70VC which is probably on the warm side.

Canon color rendition overall, is generally considered to be "cool".  I've read it many places...but certainly not all Canon lenses have a cool temperature.  Interesting you mention CA.  My copy really doesn't have any, or if it does, I haven't found it.  One troubling thing I'm noticing with the 6D, is that with the 135...sometimes AF is slower than my 70-200 f/4...especially in servo mode.  Hard to believe.  Also seems to hunt a bit more in very low light, than the "slower aperture" f/4 zoom.  Very odd.

As far as color goes, I have never seen a color rendition and spectrum, as good as the 200 f/2L that I rented.  I want one...but again, would prefer something a bit shorter that is an even faster zoom, with identical optical performance.  I think it could be done, but if Canon did it, it would cost $15k !!

The Zeiss 100mm f/2 I rented, might have the best color for fall foliage, or possibly even green foliage.  However, it also had some weird contrast, where it didn't go "black" enough...yet the bright end seemed very contrasty.  The red end of the color spectrum was really alive and "analogue" looking. 

40

Lenses / Re: Best lens for capturing the Milky Way?

« on: May 10, 2013, 06:16:25 PM »

My vote would be for Jerry Lodriguss:  http://www.astropix.com 

Jerry goes into far more detail and has been imaging for many years as well as having written several books on the subject of DSLR astrophotgraphy.  Canon also has a DLC article written by Jerry:

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2012/astrophotography_techniques.shtml

 

The best resource I know of for night photography is David Kingham.  He specializes in night/Milky Way photography and has a lot of great gear information and tutorials on his website.  Definitely worth checking out.

http://www.davidkinghamphotography.com/

Excellent source.  Thanks.

Thanks for even more useful info!

41

EOS Bodies / Re: Bye Canon?

« on: May 10, 2013, 06:08:24 PM »

Again, tiresome, redundant, unnecessary...BOTH OF YOU. 

To attempt to be fair...(and I'm not going to waste minutes of my life looking back over this trivial nonsense...)...I had thought that RL had indeed said something to the effect of, but not in these exact words: "35mm digital does not compare to medium format".  Maybe he did not say this, but I thought I saw it. 

If he did say that at one point, but somehow that is not really the point he is trying to make...then Jrista might have a point, himself.  Because Jrista is saying...35mm digital DOES compare to medium format digital, now in 2013...but he acknowledges the advantages of medium format over "full frame" digital.

However, having some brief history of my own with Jrista (whoever he is)...I can only say my opinion of him from my perspective.  He is here to argue.  "Debate" is too high minded and evolved for what you usually intend to do in this forum, Jrista.  Not that you are necessarily a "bad" debater...but clearly...it's obvious to me, that you BOTH...are here to argue in this thread...like school children on a playground.  You are not here to share knowledge or enlighten anyone...at least not in this exchange.

Neither of you will convince the other that he is wrong, so if you want to behave like adults, you should let it go.  If you want to behave like teenage "meangirls", then by all means, continue.  You're just embarrassing yourselves.

I'm not here to win popularity contests, myself.  It seems to me, that if I have an opinion, and share it, I will immediately lose brownie points to whoever doesn't like what I said.  Well, too bad.

I'm here to share and discuss photography and equipment, sometimes to debate, sometimes I sink to someone's personal level and I argue or insult...I've gotten 1 10-day ban so far.  Not looking to get banned again, but frankly, if it happens, so be it.  Not proud of it, but also not remotely ashamed of it either.  Like every blowhard you've ever heard in your life..."I have no regrets".

42

Animal Kingdom / Re: Honey Bees

« on: May 10, 2013, 05:47:57 PM »

Haha, such a cute picture an anectdote!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornet

That is what stung me 3 times in the stomach, back when I was a teenager.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_jacket

That is what has stung me all over my body when I was like 3, then twice on the head when I was about 8, then numerous other times throughout my youth and adulthood.  They especially don't like it if you are mowing anywhere near their nest, a hole in the ground.

I thank God that I have never been bitten by a poisonous snake.  I've heard horror stories about anti-venom costing $40,000...so the guy had to go on without it.  He said his arm swells up huge once a year!  Was a Copperhead...I almost stepped on a baby one once...but I had thick mud boots on.  Might not have helped!  Beware of wide, triangle shaped heads and thick bodies...It's always a relief to see the non-venomous snakes around.

43

EOS Bodies / Re: Buy 1DX now or wait for an upgrade?

« on: May 10, 2013, 05:40:28 PM »

If this is a joke thread, why is it allowed to continue?  I was under the impression that the moderator has a general lack of a sense of humor...no offense to him of course, ;-).

Having not known any history of the OP, I assumed it was just another person who likes to throw money around.  Photography is not remotely the only segment where that goes on!  Just look at most any "reality tv" show lately.

44

Lenses / Re: Best lens for capturing the Milky Way?

« on: May 10, 2013, 05:28:50 PM »

Ok - on the Zeiss 25/2
I have one of these. It's an expensive piece of glass. It's also probably the sharpest lens of it's type available. It is certainly sharper than the 21/2.8. Be aware that the 24L has considerable focus curvature. The Zeiss has some but it's better controlled.

Sorry to quote out of context, but this is directly contrary to what Lensrentals found when they tested the Zeiss 25mm f/2.  They found it was not all that sharp, and I assume tested several copies.

The Canon 24/1.4 II seems like the intuitive choice but, as others have pointed out, the coma is really, really bad.  Even stopped down to f/2.8 it’s still quite bad.  It’s almost gone by f/4.0 but…now you’re shooting f/1.4 glass at f/4.0…how does that make you feel?

I’ve been researching this for quite a while and I’m about 95% of the way to buying:
The SamyRokiowyer 14 f/2.8

Not just because it’s cheap, it seems to have FAR better coma-control than anything else available.  I also have a buddy that uses one of these almost exclusively for star-work, and the results are impressive.

I’m a CPS member and have been auditioning tons of lenses that are 50mm and wider…and most Canon glass doesn’t cut it for one reason or another.  The fast glass needs to be stopped down a ton before you get rid of the coma artifacts.  The slow glass (like the 17mm and 24mm tilt shifts) is pretty damn good but…it’s slow…you have to really crank hard on the ISO.

I’ve rented the Zeiss 15 and 21’s but I never had good skies while I was renting them so I couldn’t test them.  Anyone test these bad boys out yet?  Curious if the coma is well-controlled or not.

I rented the 24mm f/1.4 ii, a couple of years ago.  I only used it on a crop camera.  I found that the image did not get sharp toward the corners until stopped down to f/6.3.  I can't imagine how much worse it would have been on a full frame.  And this was just standard daytime "terrestrial" outdoor shooting.  I didn't even bother trying any Milky Way shots with it. 

As wide angle lenses go, I will just come out and say it.  This particular Canon, does seem to represent a poor value.  The Zeiss 21mm Distagon, even though priced a bit higher and "only" f/2.8, would rank a far higher value for money, in my opinion (despite the above).

That said, I am leaning more towards the Tokina 16-28 zoom, but some have said it exhibits weird "halo" flare around things like street lights, at night.  That would not be good for shooting the stars, Milky Way, and upcoming "brighter than the full moon and visible in daytime" comet... 

A friend of mine has this lens for his 7D (go figure), so I plan to try it on my 6D, before I decide which lens to buy.  His daytime shots with it look fantastic (except for the 7D's noise), and I have not noticed any flare. 

Regarding the Rokinon 24mm...I have not yet tried it, but I own their 85mm f/1.4, and it is quite nice.  Very sharp, not decentered, basically no CA that I can see, even in the full frame corners.  It is supposedly an old Nikon optical design.  However, I have it for sale, because I prefer autofocus in this focal length...and because at this time I need a wide zoom more, since I bought the 6D.  I've told myself I need the Canon 100mm f/2, but the other voice in my head says "just use your 135 f/2 and take a few more steps backward"...haha...I think I'll listen to that voice this time!

45

6D Sample Images / Re: Anything shot with a 6D

« on: May 09, 2013, 02:09:04 PM »

Dustin and Carl.
Thank you for your positive comments on some of my first 6D shots.
I still enjoy the new tool - it is great.

Glad to hear that!  Between using the camera, and editing...my right hand gets cramps!